Daniel Dennett | From Bacteria to Bach and Back | Talks at Google
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.พ. 2017
- How did we come to have minds?
For centuries, this question has intrigued psychologists, physicists, poets, and philosophers, who have wondered how the human mind developed its unrivaled ability to create, imagine, and explain. Disciples of Darwin have long aspired to explain how consciousness, language, and culture could have appeared through natural selection, blazing promising trails that tend, however, to end in confusion and controversy. Even though our understanding of the inner workings of proteins, neurons, and DNA is deeper than ever before, the matter of how our minds came to be has largely remained a mystery.
That is now changing, says Daniel C. Dennett. In From Bacteria to Bach and Back, his most comprehensive exploration of evolutionary thinking yet, he builds on ideas from computer science and biology to show how a comprehending mind could in fact have arisen from a mindless process of natural selection. Part philosophical whodunit, part bold scientific conjecture, this landmark work enlarges themes that have sustained Dennett’s legendary career at the forefront of philosophical thought.
More about the book: goo.gl/lHNgiP
![Genshin Impact | กาชา Clorinde ไวฟุนั้น ควร C6 [เทสตัวละครต่อ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SOVaBvL7K20/mqdefault.jpg)
Dan Dennett is a treasure. Clearly under-appreciated with only 360k views!
It's great that we can still listen to his talks & read his books, but I will miss hearing his takes on new ideas & events. Such a sad loss for us all.
47:03 What a simple and accurate explanation of evolution here
Dennett delivers again. The master of cross-discipline explanation.
Exactly. He is a fox among hedgehogs.
I think you mean fox among hedgehog.
Yes Dennett is a fox. Corrected
He delivers a lecture of verbal diarrhea.
If you say so
One of these cases where I want to give more than one like.
The guy at 1:02:55 is Dennett's caricature at 42:40
I'm not like sure what you like mean. Can you like give an example?
It's as though they put him in the audience on purpose.
Lmao
Charles Darwin on talks at google
Charles Darwin XXL
Matheus Mendonça Chuck D in the hizzy
Dan is the end of philosophy, pretends to understand science. Should watch how water preserves memory, information and even react to thought.
@@naimulhaq9626 Do you think that in order to restore his reputation as a philosopher Dan Dennett should acknowledge the validity of homeopathy?
Dan is incapable to avoid stunt philosophy. But if you care please read the latest TIME article on PLACEBO.
thank you for posting this
. . . genuinely appreciate being able to return to this (over & over)
beyond words
Never get tired of listening to Dennett!
Epic, and very inspiring if you're into GA/EC/Machine Intelligence.We're all lucky to have Dennett around.
So many questions to ask Dr Dennett... I would need to sit down and hammer them out with him for hours..
8:40 is totally mind blowing ! Excellent talk 👌
It's amazing that almost anyone can have access to the fundamental constants of the universe. We have many great mathematicians and scientists through the ages that have granted the every day person the privilege of this knowledge
Feeling grateful
Love this, please enable CC.
excellent talk ! thank you!
Brilliant. Congratulations DD.
I feel sad for DD did not get the point of ANC.
An absolute pleasure listening to Dr Dennett. I wish this talk was 10 hours long. Not sure I felt satisfied with the last answer though, which of course dodged the question after the contradiction was revealed. Ok, we don't know how the consciousness trick is done yet. That's why it's called a hard problem of science! And yet there is an assumption that it's Newtonian and it's all just qualitative and merely a sophisticated computer. To make that assumption when we have no idea how consciousness works yet and then to talk about respect for the truth in the same breath is just intellectual dishonestly. The bit about programming a funny bone is just bollocks. He is anthropomorphising a simple algorithm. That wouldn't constitute pain or give a machine rights if it got sophisticated enough. There is clearly something more at work here when it comes to consciousness. I'm not implying it's hocus pocus and woo, but rather a quantum layer underneath that makes minds more than just a collection of atoms. The Physicist Roger Penrose is worth listening to on this. The experiments with the carbon nanotubes at the base of neurons in particular are real interesting. They could be serving to somehow contain a quantum state that can be collapsed into a superposition at some triggered time. As of this time, I don't believe this has gone through a peer review process yet, but it's getting there. The experiments are showing that it's these nanotubes that are being affected by anesthesia, which has been a mystery for a long time. If this turns out to be true, then we may finally have a small foothold when it comes to the problem of consciousness.
"That's why it's called a hard problem of science! "
It's not called that. The so-called "hard problem of consciousness" is specifically *not* a problem in science, but rather in (bad) philosophy of mind. Dennett has written at length on why this unfortunate formulation is a deflection and diversion from the actual hard work to be done.
"we have no idea how consciousness works yet"
This isn't true. Perhaps you should read Dennett's book.
And the Hameroff/Penrose stuff is a joke.
@@JimBalter He knows how it works? Sounds like he should have won several Nobels by now. He hasn't. This one's going to take time. I'm in the Penrose camp. Consciousness is NOT a computation. I understand the pitfalls of religious charlatanism here, but that's no reason to reject ideas, which many in science seem to do purely because it's too thorny and they are simply too scared to go there.
@@Mortum_Rex Have you looked into Wolfram's recent work involving 'multicomputation'? My understanding from his ideas about consciousness is approximately: "Consciousness is not \*a\* computation - instead, it arises from the 'computability-space' you get when considering \*all possible\* computations on given input information"
I am so glad I listened to the whole explanation of memetic evolution.
kinda makes you think there was already intelligent design in the first place.
@@frozzytango9927 It doesn't make intelligent people think that.
How would you establish music as a physical phenomenon. Thought is based on the physical brain and it arises from the physical. Thought about music is about organized sound, that is an organized set of vibrations in the air. Hearing is something that relates to the set of physical sounds. A physical ear drum is being aroused. Perception is what...of physical things. The process of writing involves material things. Recording is translating physical to digital (and digital devices are based on electronic activity that is physical), back to physical. The mental is grounded in the physical, and perception is rooted in the physical brain.
52:45. My answer to Chomsky's quote: I can't understand all of science but I trust it because I have studied it enough to feel I understand some things to some extent.
I learned that it takes little more than to be a con artist to be given the podium at Google, ever since they invited Anita to talk.
Dan Dennett, however, is an excellent choice; he is someone who demonstrably knows what he is talking about and has the achievements to prove it. Thank you for this.
Since I brought this up, I'd like to paraphrase Dan Dennett's answer regarding his stance on PC culture, which is my favorite answer on the matter by far. The following is not word for word; for the exact quote, watch his interview with Gad Saad here on YT.
"I think political correctness is a hindrance to the free exchange of ideas and is harmful to public discourse in general, especially if given free reign over legislation. However, I also think insulting people only for the sake of insulting them is a cruel thing to do. While we must be allowed the freedom to say whatever we want, being pleasant towards others, even those we disagree with, helps us move forward much more smoothly."
Walter Sullivan for sure
BOOM! LOGIC! His quote is worth repeating, so I shall:
"I think political correctness is a hindrance to the free exchange of ideas and is harmful to public discourse in general, especially if given free reign over legislation. However, I also think insulting people only for the sake of insulting them is a cruel thing to do. While we must be allowed the freedom to say whatever we want, being pleasant towards others, even those we disagree with, helps us move forward much more smoothly."
The catch is, what is everyone else's idea or definition of political correctness?
i agree but you certainly don´t need sarkeesian to see that: they had deepak chopra on, twice. these are only two of the most prominent cons, bullshit artists and generelly just plain idiots. sadly there are many many many more. having somebody like dan on is one of only a few rare exceptions.
Wonderful to listen to so much wisdom.. i wonder if you have considered discussing A I with Yuval Noah Harrari...
this is such an amazing talk
Effing excellent awesome presentation!
I listened to some of his speeches. This one: I am amazed.
Following the comparison between a termite colony and a neural network, could it be proposed that the former should posses, although somewhat bare, but still subjective consciousness? What about humanity as a whole? Could it also be subjectively conscious beyond what we, acting as single cells in the human society, could perceive?
There's a sci-fi novel with sentient termite colonies...
Trees have reasons. Split brains show that humans often come up with ad hoc explanations for the things they do. This is why the scientific method is so essential. It gives us a verifiable and testable way to ensure the thing are we doing are truly rational and beneficial.
The theory of Dennett is rather oldfashioned and massively oversimplifying You can as well read the catechism of the catholic church, the intellectual and scientific level is approximately the same. Dennet is a Guru for the People who like a simple view of reality. If you want some real quality stuff, look at the papers of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger...
I was wondering when we would stop getting Dennett doing science and start getting Dennett doing meta analysis of science (philosophy according to Dennett, more or less). It's within the first four minutes (and I think that's more interesting than whether Creationists got Schooled....Religious Naturalist-Evolutionist here).
If only I could be as smart and witty as this man. How he has made a simpleton of me.
You still have time to catch up ;)
The theory of Dennett is rather oldfashioned and massively oversimplifying You can as well read the catechism of the catholic church, the intellectual and scientific level is approximately the same. Dennet is a Guru for the People who like a simple view of reality. If you want some real quality stuff, look at the papers of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger...
@@theconnoisseur2346 looks like you've never read an actual philosopher
Daniel Dennett on a discussion panel with Yuval Noah Harrari. that would be an amazing blast.
better than having war criminals on, and nice to see the comments are enabled.
Volound Don't think you know what "war criminal" means.
Rights and responsibilities should increase hand-in-hand with comprehension/consciousness. This can't be based solely on being human, or not. We need a way to make comprehending constructs (e.g. A.I.) accountable, themselves.
As an example, based on how we (people trained in forensic psychology) treat criminals: constructs could value something, which would be taken away as punishment. Eventually, the punishment is learned as a deterrent. At the same time, an action - incompatible with the morally reprehensible action - is rewarded.
Amazing !
When Dennett says "hero" at 10:16, doesn't it kind of sound like how Stan Lee would say it? Also great presentation! :)
Thanks for uploading this! Dennett's so lucid and such a wonderful connector of dots.
His implied acceptance of plutocrats at around 1:10:00 disturbs me, though, and his assertion that "the damage done by post-modernists to the very ideal of objectivity and truth is... that's vandalism" at 1:13:25 is wholly ignorant of what philosophers discussing postmodernism are actually saying. I can't be the only one who thinks this?
Daniel, I wish you do not die. You make us "think" differently
Dear Sir,I request you to give a list of terms or new terms coined by you and their meanings in the context in the glossary at the end of each book.This will help readers both scientific and common people.Thanks.
Watched all of it again after hearing he just passed away a 2 days ago yesterday from NDT facebook post 😢 1:07:04
54:00 "We should not make persons out of AI because it would blur the lines of moral responsibility."
But we already have systems that have life of their own -- corporations and whole countries with their dysfunctional governments ! Lots of individuals try to have their way, and out of confluence of many interests, things happen which no single constituent wanted or can be meaningfully held responsible for.
If there is redemption to be had, it's at the level of the individual. The moral and mental well-being of a single person acts as a force of positive influence within their network. From this arises sound government, corporations, etc.
An AI super entity placed in charge of say, the government, has no stake in the game and there exists such a potential for chaos within that kind of system that it's unbelievable people still espouse it.
@Bat Computer They're undead animated by bad zombie juju.. shiny, happy people eating brains.
If all of the peoples would only hold hands all around the world, a lot of them would drown.
Well said. You're exactly right, and to what degree would we say that corporations have blurred the lines of moral responsibility? But these entities and their enormous capital have given us much progress. There are no obvious right answers it seems.
This man has dedicated his whole life to the epistemological effort of explaining how we came to be what we are without including the line "And then the whole thing gets sprinkled with pixie dust". Dualism seems to be our brain's default stance, but unfortunately it gives us no purchase on anything.
UT is a
"Just 86 billion semi-automounous neurons doing their thing" - Daniel Dennett
An absurd statement that is the result of circular reasoning.
@@electricrice what is circular about it?
scientism
two small corrections so far:
protists are eukaryotes, and hominids as a taxon includes the apes
signed,
big dan dennett fan
He's actually almost correct in one sense. Initially the classification of protists did include some prokaryotic forms, but those forms were later reclassified as monera. That was in the 1800s though. Perhaps he read that somewhere and misremembered?
So funny when he talks about how Picaso's genius was selling all his paintings that weren’t perfect. Then says to the Google audience "don’t you wish you could do that?".
IDK if he new the irony in what he said?
Was thinking the exact same thing. lol.
His TED talks were more interesting, but I'm taking this in from an traditional AI perspective (which is only at the very end of his book). Dennett is the only one speaking out against Chomsky, but I haven't heard him mention Skinner and behaviorism directly. Indirectly, he replaces the idea of language as the end all with the lower level idea of meme's we attach words too.
Dennett does mention behaviorism directly in some videos where he discusses evolution. And he also wrote an article titled "Skinner skinned".
@@no_more_spamplease5121 Interesting, but Skinner was talking about a narrow aspect of behavior; that animal behavior was driven by environement, and I think Dennett innate and learned abilities, which are like the bread of the behavior sandwich. Skinners conditioning really has nothing to do with the language aspect, and I think both Skinner and Chomsky should have just stayed in their own lanes. *lots of wrongness to go around
This is really brilliant and exciting.
excellent stuff
The theory of Dennett is rather oldfashioned and massively oversimplifying You can as well read the catechism of the catholic church, the intellectual and scientific level is approximately the same. Dennet is a Guru for the People who like a simple view of reality. If you want some real quality stuff, look at the papers of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger...
Dennett gives a charitable approach to fearing Frankenstein's monster. I predict that Asimov's 3 Laws win out and that machines endure full domestication with machines' own help, and Dennett's creativity-enhancing machines lead our way.
Please, english subtitles!
great speaker.
What remarkable connections get made
I think it would be better to say, in some circumstances, that reason is revealed, rather than we (or whomever) didn't have a reason in our minds until retrospectively afterward. Thus reason can be considered latent and dormant, even if not obvious or apparent, until such moment that its purpose is understood, and thus the reason revealed. I've been mulling this over and wondering if it could also be something like the way sculptors talk about sculpting-- chipping away everything that *isn't* part of the artwork until what remains is the point-- the purpose-- the reason-- for the artwork.
I had another thought in a different portion of the talk where he was talking about termites (chaotic / evolutionary design) versus man (pre-considered, specific design), and I was wondering if perhaps the termites were receiving their manufacturing orders via some different sort of channel. While they may have evolved to carry out specific "mindless" actions, was the reason for those actions not similarly "revealed" in a manner similar to the sculptor's art-- in that they were "chipped away" over successive iterations to be the embodiment of the reason.
Watched all of it again
Does anyone know where you can find the tree of life graphic he uses or something similar as a poster?
After just first few minutes I went on to read the comments!! :)
And some of Gaudi's critics (and there are many) would say that HE was clueless (not that I agree). But yes, he was the boss, not a termite.
Haaa! The "virtual machines" concept made me think immediately of Mckenna and his cultural operating system talks...
Dawkin's book 'The Selfish Gene' is the best overview of neo-Darwinism, certainly; it is not however up to date with modern evolutionary theory, in which genes are just one (not domineering) part of a system, filled with feedback loops.
Hes getting older since former times, but he look similiar this time in the former at Tufts University.
True individual of science.
The theory of Dennett is rather oldfashioned and massively oversimplifying You can as well read the catechism of the catholic church, the intellectual and scientific level is approximately the same. Dennet is a Guru for the People who like a simple view of reality. If you want some real quality stuff, look at the papers of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger...
@@theconnoisseur2346 Dennett, unlike the others you have mentioned is actually still alive, so who is really old-fashioned
Great man.
Brilliant
makes it sound like intelligence in general is only an effect, not a feature, so any structure could be capable of intelligence if it produced the effect
I think most of the time the camera should be pointed at the presentation screen
His terminology is just a little off at the beginning: protists are also eukaryotes. Protists are just single-celled eukaryotes, and eukaryotes are cells that have a nucleus and organelles.
I think he just got protist mixed up with prokaryot.
Dude go away
CADA SEGUNDO É UM BLOOING MIND DIFERENTE
amazing
Wow such a pleasure to visit fellow truth seekers and valuers
What about a deterrent governor somewhat like a nerve pain to restrain reasoning robots from harming us?
I think he's right about free will as well.
Unfortunately since you believe we have no free will, you have no reason to believe Dennett is right about free will.
@@RobertASmith-yy7ge Dennett believe there is free will, actually.
Dear Mr Dennett, Thank you for your insights and extensive research and your knowledge in general that you have so graciously shared with the world. Dan, I have a wrench to throw in the spokes of your wheel of wisdom, however. We have got to factor in that the living cell to have happened by chance in the primordial soup of an early Earth is not on-the-charts of possibility. The outer membrane of the simplest cell, a yeast cell, has 10 to the 78 billion combinations and only one is possible for it to work. Secondly, at 35:50 in your talk you mention Picasso's quote: "I don't seek, I find." It is not an arrogant summation of his own mind power, what he means is that as a painter he doesn't stop until something in his mind tells him that he has found the best way to solve the particular problem that he was working on. Nothing more.
You forgot to think about how many times a yeast cell was almost created before it worked. A single 5 gram packet of yeast contains approximately 90 billion yeast cells.
yes, the possibility is low, but over the given the timeline of the existence of life, the probability that a something would organize is actually not unlikely.
Dennett has a response to this towards the beginning of his book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (to the probability of the first cell emerging via natural processes)
As Mr. Spock would say (with one eyebrow raised), "Fascinating!"
the 'bare brain' isn't merely a programmable logic array (aimless, purposeless neurons)
it has an architecture, vast numbers of functional areas (most notably for vision and language, social dynamics, learning, etc., etc). to that extent, his analysis is actually quite misleading - i suppose to beat the drum for social/cultural evolution (in service of, of course, corporation-think). you dont have to negate the one to appreciate the other.
Is Problem vs. Mystery the same as Natural vs. Supernatural? Or, is it more like How vs. Why?
It's simply problems can be solved, mysteries cannot.
Chomsky talks about this extensively in a lecture available on TH-cam. Rats cannot solve a prime number maze because they just lack the relevant concepts - they are biologically limited and hence that is a mystery for them. They can’t even understand the problem. For humans, Chomsky argues, there are limitations in our abilities that probably render much of the universe as unintelligible mysteries.
A great mind there. Im sad to see him aging
I agree. We should definitely freeze him.
Accept it
Mythagoras Yeah, hopefully he comes to Christ so he can experience eternal life instead of eternal death.
@@stevetucker5851 Please, try to avoid speaking.
@@mgrycz 😂
we're top of the shelf designs haha
Rip, Dan ❤️
*"Some folks calls it a sling blade, I calls it a kaiser blade...hmph"~Karl Childers*
\\][//
RIP King
Thanks
Why is the video so glitchy
When leaders realize they are not supposed to oversee anything but instead create a nurturing environment and defend their team rather than push real progress can once again be made rather than 0’s being added to bank accounts. Capitalism is inherently good, but lack of regulation from the people, like the “we the people” has led our leaders down the wrong path, the internet is the cure for that I believe. Information is so powerful, more that I believe I can comprehend.
i love him
Google - You can not say you have not been warned ! What are the unintended consequences of your business model. We gave you a change because you said:
RIP Mr Dennett
Really good talk - now lets figure out how to leverage this to solve the #climatecrisis!
super
The theory of Dennett is rather oldfashioned and massively oversimplifying You can as well read the catechism of the catholic church, the intellectual and scientific level is approximately the same. Dennet is a Guru for the People who like a simple view of reality. If you want some real quality stuff, look at the papers of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger...
Dennet seems to support the precautionary principle.
So we are termites that created meme platform
haha 😆 yea! Only a university professor would come up with such crap.
@@rasmith_99 douche
@@ilovethesmelloffire good one! lol. Go back to your lowlife life.
At around the 50:00 mark, he mentions that AI 'don't have any skin in the game'. And while I agree with him in the LITERAL definition of 'skin', his comment breaks down when the phrase is taken figuratively as I expect he intended. AI has more 'skin in the game' than we who are merely biological and degrade entirely (to the point of death, and therefore non-existence) over time. AI, it would seem, already has that problem solved. AI, it seems by definition, can be backed up nearly infinitely -- certainly with enough redundancy to make the issue moot. So AI would really be looking at a near-immortality with which we mere humans cannot at this time compete.
He meant that the electricity that feeds the computation is free for the AI.
8:40 - Daniel is about to talk on how there are no contractor ants and things. I watched a youtube video (will be looking for the source) which it was pointed out that in Australia there were either Leaf Cutter or Carpenter ant nests or termite nests that were so large you could see them from above. They make giant nests and farm a particular kind of mushroom. Have six different classes of that ant (so far) like how bees have workers and queen and drones
I believe ants and termites have their own kind of intelligence, though it's different from human intelligence
"Words are semi-autonomous informational structures"
great man.
Fat man.
termite vs architechture model got me
The beginning stats are pretty grim tho.
How design or thinking brain can arise without comprehension
Well, you did it in 9 months.
D.D. said somewhere here that he did not know how music could be bad. Well this is just ridiculous! There are so many different kinds of music and just as many tastes. So what one person likes, another will say is bad. I know that personally, there are certain kinds of music that are really bad. I hate it. Other pieces are works which can uplift the listener, but there are others which just allow the hearer to wallow in depravity and drag people down.
i like, really liked that, like, that one, like, questioner, like, kept saying, like, the very, like, word that dan, like, made a, like, point of, like, pointing out as, like, a viral, like, word
How does the first meme come into being?
Does the Professor actually get to read the comments?
Is survival instinct a meme or genetically inherited? I am unable to decide if survival behavior can be inherited by monkeys; and by extrapolation, humans. Recently, I witnessed a woman in a London Thai restaurant who was traumatized at seeing an artificial snake hanging from a lampshade. Later we learned that the lady had previously experienced a real snake incident in her native Thailand. My philosophy tutor has not been able to fully explain to me why monkeys breed in London Zoo and who have never ever seen a snake should panic immediately when confronted with a rubber replica of a snake.
It's genetic
Thank you Internet Jesus for 1.25x speed.